Chouinard Strikes Back

James Wwrote:

While Chouinard is quoted, the essay’s author writes about climbing like a 5.7 gumby.  The points are outdated, shallow and oversimplified.

Could you be a bit more specific? Which ones are outdated, which are shallow (and why?) and which are oversimplified? Could anything be more outdated, shallow and simplistic than dismissing this article in a single sentence, containing judgments, but no support? And some of us 5.7 climbers have been climbing for 50+ years; we may not pull hard, but we are hardly gumbies.

Brett Harriswrote:

TLDR: large corporation tries to guilt trip you for going to the crag and proposes no real solution to the far from novel issues it presents

But muh gucci

Tanner Jameswrote:

Patagonia also makes every single piece of uniform equipment for all special operations units in the United States military. They got a ton of hate for that recently for obvious reasons,...

You mean for stupid reasons?

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Call me a libtard, but I’d rather Patagonia not support the military industrial complex (that nearly half our tax dollars go to while our bridges and schools are rotting).

So what. Patagonia makes damn good wear. The military buys the gear. I'd say Patagonia is making a smart reason to sell said gear to the military industrial complex... wtf...so, give me a smart reason why they should not make money. Chouinard may have his issues, but wtf... he's done good too.

Schools are rotting? Hmmmm... 

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Because there is more to this life than just making money. Sure, a government contract is huge, but you don’t think they make enough selling to the general public for all involved to live a good life? 

Just make make a good point! Please...

Do I think they make enough money? That's your point? I am not personal with Chouinard, but he's done a effing lot more than you and I combined in terms of humanitarian effort, prolly... (I don't know you), but your not a Hobo, it takes money. As I am sure you know...

Our military is about keeping peace, without it we would be speaking Russian and Chinese. I'll take a strong well equipped military over the lying sellouts we keep electing to public office.

Shoot the messenger (Patagonia, Chouinard, Hung) and ignore the message, that's the spirit! Why, why, why, Patagonia uses petroleum!!!!!!! Chouinard is a billionaire!!!!!! Hung cllimbs 5.7!!!!!!!!!!!

So it would seem the underlying point of the article is unassailable, then.

Clouds over the heart of Tutokanula (El Capitan)

This opening sets my expectations for the article.

One problem is it conflates issues. Changing the meaning of words, which is a popular and common way to manipulate today (used to be called weasel words on Wikipedia and got flagged) to piggy back on a good point or sound argument. Provoking an emotion then using sleight of hand to direct attention to an unconnected topic.

And ZERO mention of the beginning of sport climbing, especially in the Taktuhuachupetl (The United States of America). Rap bolting undid what clean climbing started.

Finally - how about your house? What about the parking space you use at work? The train station? So many plants, trees and mosses DESTROYED! But fuck them, I'm concerned about a branch in a place that accommodates hundreds more people per year than the space of your bedroom.

The article could be improved by:

1. Having a call to action - tell me what your point is. Telling the world that some or most people are not as good as they should be is weak. Be courageous and take a stand on what you think people should do. Then the debate is about how to live in the right way, not whether I or you or someone is bad or not (we're all bad).
2. Separating the two points - aesthetic environmental impact, and ethics of climbing style
3. Admit the guilt of Chouinard, yourself and the industry that panders to and enables all the bad people who are not doing things right 

x15x15wrote:

You mean for stupid reasons?

I mean I’m in the military man lol you don’t need to tell me. The article was ass. The people who self immolated because Patagonia made military uniforms are ass and Patagonia is ass for conceding. I just said it was obvious all things considered from both sides  

Tanner Jameswrote:

I mean I’m in the military man lol you don’t need to tell me. The article was ass. The people who self immolated because Patagonia made military uniforms are ass and Patagonia is ass for conceding. I just said it was obvious all things considered from both sides  

I thiught the article was ridiculous too! 

I guess I should have said... for obvious stupid reasons?

Steve McGeewrote:

The article could be improved by:

1. Having a call to action - tell me what your point is. Telling the world that some or most people are not as good as they should be is weak. Be courageous and take a stand on what you think people should do. Then the debate is about how to live in the right way, not whether I or you or someone is bad or not (we're all bad).
2. Separating the two points - aesthetic environmental impact, and ethics of climbing style
3. Admit the guilt of Chouinard, yourself and the industry that panders to and enables all the bad people who are not doing things right 

4. How about a bit more from Chouinard himself and more context?  Was this a new interview with the oracle?  Unless these are recent comments, this is a bit of old news in terms of Chouinard's perspective on these questions.  He's been denigrating what us mere mortals call "adventure" for decades, for example.

The font was too big, and the writing was rambling on and on.  I didn't really grasp what she was cookin.

Lol you guys are awesome! 

 I’m not sure what the specific point of this article was. We all need to do better at LNT? Sure. Agree. Let’s keep trying to do better.

But this feels like the greatest trick the devil played convincing you he doesn’t exist. Kind of Like the plastics industry tricking the masses into blaming themselves for plastics pollution, and that if only the individual could do better with recycling and no littering there wouldn’t be such a big problem.

Don’t get me wrong, Im a fan Patagonia. I’m a fan of let my people go surfing. I’m a fan of climbing history and those larger than life figures from that time period. I personally don’t care that they have military contracts.

just all comes off a bit hypocritical or at a minimum ignoring all the complex dynamics involved. More and more people recreating outside. So finger pointing and self flagellation is the way to go? What role do outdoor space giant corporations have in drawing the masses to the outdoors? How many climbers in their climbing photography marketing images relied on mostly unfettered and protected climbing access to do the things they do and accomplish the things the accomplish? They show climbers on el cap. Those climbers rely on bolts being protected and permissible in the wilderness. What is their stance on that, as it pertains to “clean climbing”?

What has the most impact to land? Sport climbing, bouldering, or trad climbing?  I would argue, In order of most to least, bouldering, sport, then trad. But personally I think they are all totally valid ways to recreate outside, no better or worse than backpacking, camping, hiking, or kayaking. How many Patagonia sponsored athletes boulder outdoors, with crews, chalk, fans, speakers, pads, etc? Is this a, for the “other” crowds of newer folks it’s bad and causes too much impact, but for certain folks that are doing it “right” it’s ok? In terms of more and more people recreating outside, and impact from that, are climbers really anywhere near top of this triage list?

If impact on public lands is the primary concern here, should we spend 80% of our energy talking about chalk, bolts, and crash pads, and 20% about climate change and extractive industries using public lands? There’s where you get into the really challenging stuff imo. Like, is it possible to “responsibly” extract in the short term for more energy independence and to access resources like battery components that help transition to a “greener” economy. Should we be removing red tape for new nuclear power plants? Should we import more and more oil and burn more and more coal to try and get to this “just over the horizon” all renewables economy?

again, I’m just not sure what the point of the article is? Shouldn’t we all want to use and enjoy our public lands? And protect that? Or are they meant to be uncrowded pristine spaces for only a select few? If you want less crowds hike further? Drive farther? Is hand wringing about bolts and chalk super helpful? I think those issues are worth being thoughtful and considerate about, but maybe causing too many folks to loose sight of the larger picture? Also The comment about Olympics climbing only being a “sport”, and using the word sport as pejorative. Not a good look. 

I’ve usually leaned towards team Royal Robbins, but now I’m realizing I might also be team Warren Harding.   

Yeah, the whole- "sport- bad" thing is ridiculous, especially coming from someone who rung in the era of "by any means necessary" climbing. Climbing has definitely evolved, and until the next major pro breakthrough, we'll all have to live by the title of Hudon's film 'As Clean As Can Be' lol. And as far as adventure goes... if MP didn't exist, id say 10% of new routes would get climbed by more than a few locals everywhere they're put up. The classics would be polished in no time. 

Fern Gullywrote:

Sponsored by one of the biggest outdoor apparell  retailers whose only real goal is to sell as much as possible created by a billionaire whose fortune was amassed by selling his piton company and churning out overpriced apparel to the masses. Talking about our impact? Thanks for the lecture 

not at all accurate and reveals an extremely poor understanding of the company and the context within which it does business

Three pages - and still, nothing coherent or logical. And, as always, 98% of MPers have thoughts but they can't think.  

I agree with CD.  The article is just a poor attempt at virtue signaling and another echo in the chamber of ethics and sustainability.

It is no secret that climbing has become vastly more popular, and that more people than ever are recreating outdoors.  Obviously, that has an impact on the environment but, there's really... not a solution at the end of the day.  Why?  Because the only real solution to the problem is for people to stop climbing, and stop recreating outdoors.  Just walking through an area leaves a trace.  Putting pads down leaves a trace.  Putting bolts up leaves a trace.  Chalking up leaves a trace.  Everything you do outdoors leaves a trace.  Climbing inherently leaves a trace, as does anything you do in life.

Simultaneously, given the fact that we all love climbing and the outdoors, I don't think any of us are really interested in stopping what we're doing.  Climbers are selfishly rejecting the only real "solution" and then complaining about a problem they're actively perpetuating.  Let me make this clear:  I'm a part of the problem.  And no, I'm not going to stop climbing or going outdoors.

What I'm really trying to say is that there is no "stopping" this train because we don't want it to be stopped.  Pretty much everyone knows to practice LNT, and everyone knows to be respectful of our public lands and resources.  Most people do a good job, and I'd say that those who truly care about climbing will always do their best to be respectful.  We also know that there's going to be people who don't care, and will abuse the resources and opportunities they have at their disposal.  There will never not be these people, no matter what activity, time, place, day or age.  To put it simply, it's just "human nature".

To summarize:  If you reject the only true solution to a problem, then your only option is to mitigate the problem as much as you can, if you're already attempting to mitigate the problem to your best efforts (barring some bad apples) then there's really not much else that can be done.  Which is why the article doesn't have a point.  There's nothing to be said unless you are addressing something specific and poignant, which this article did not.

My point in all of this:  I'd like to see an end to the constant virtue signaling about ethics unless something new or novel is being presented.  Discussion is good but, echo chambers and circle jerking isn't productive or enjoyable.

I'm confused, was this an attack on chalk?

Dave Meyer wrote:

As if I needed another reason to not support Patagucci. The hypocrisy and elitism they shamelessly promote is a blight on the climbing community. The "ambassadors" they have on the team have drilled hundreds if not thousands of bolts in the Valley alone. 

Touche.

https://eu.patagonia.com/frBE/ambassadors/